Talk:List of reported UFO sightings/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Addition of the 2018 UFO videos released by To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Lately, mainstream media has given significant attention to a series of videos and articles released by TTSA. These include sightings and videos by the US Navy and US Airforce, along with discourse of the Pentagon's AATIP program from ex-government officials like Christopher Mellon and Lue Elizondo. Examples: NYTs Story Washington Post Story Tucker Carlson Fox Video

Because of this, I think it deserves some attention and should be included on this list. Parzival1919 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, add them in, since they are pretty clear and publicly recognised sightings.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens

OK, rather then go through the whole damn lot and try and dig out the ancient sources. Sources must say these were UFO's, it is not good enough for a ed to "know it. So Which of these claims it was a UFO?

Mary MacGregor, Walter Crane, The Story of Greece, Yesterday Classics, Chaped Hill

Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica, Book 16, Chapter 66

Plutarch, Lucullus, 8.6, on Perseus

War of the Jews Book VI, sect. 296

Is no quote is provided these sources will be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets also throw in Livy, where does he say anything about UFO's?Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Livy 218 BC

@Slatersteven: Current wiki text translates this as ""an appearance of ships had shone forth from the sky". Primary citation translates this as "that phantom ships had been seen gleaming in the sky."[1] Third party source (Stothers) translates it as “a spectacle of ships (navium) gleamed in the sky.”[2] The latter identifies the date as 218 BCE. Kintpuash (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But it does not appear that anyone has reported this as a UFO rather than a legend or myth. jps (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This more under the heading of aerial mirages and phantom armies. These sorts of things often get lumped in with modern UFO sightings.--Auric talk 20:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Get lumped in" by whom? Unless the people doing the lumping are reliable sources, Wikipedia should be judicious. jps (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reader's Digest published a book called "Mysteries of the Unexplained" ISBN 0276380037. The section "Unidentified Flying Objects" takes some fortean liberties with the term, including apparently unrelated events like Ezekiel's Wheel, The History of the True Cross, the Mystery airships and modern UFO reports. The entries are sourced and presented as likely factual.--Auric talk 01:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So am I to take it that this list is based on a section of a book by Reader's Digest? How is that a "reported UFO sighting"? That's just a list made up by some pulp writer, surely. jps (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For me that is enough. I do not think we need the witnesses to say "it was a UFO guv" just someone else saying it was. But if a source does not say it is a UFO we cannot use that source for it being a UFO.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The explicit purpose of the Stothers paper is to document potential text in antiquity that may represent UFO sightings. We shouldn't be deciding what is and what is not a ancient example of a UFO report, but using RS. A primary source attached to help the general reader for each one is fine, as long as it has a secondary source. While the Stothers paper appears to have been used for an item or so on the list, I get the general impression a less reliable source was used for some other items. Perhaps one published by "Body Mind Spirit." That would explain the screwy dates. If the antiquity parts of the article used the Stothers paper as a starting point to identify what ancient texts to include I think the items listed would be more reliable. Kintpuash (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK I can see the validity of this argument, as long as there is a secondary source calling it a UFO, but I would rather this was not done as a source. Maybe just a link such as See livy).Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing these secondary texts. I have been removing all the entries which do not seem to have been sourced to secondary texts. It would be nice if such texts were at a level that was a bit higher than forteana since by such arguments positively identified flying objects are sometimes mislabeled as UFOs. jps (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tremendous lack of representation of phenomenon from antiquity

There are at least a dozen phenomenon that have been reported from before the modern era which are entirely absent from this list.

Why is the list so focused on modern phenomenon only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions on this talk page. One issue is that presenting old stories as UFOs is a type of revisionism. Another is that for them to be included a reliable source should make the association for us; this way we avoid original research or synthesis. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained we need secondary sources (not an ed) saying they were UFO's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that this page like almost all of Wikipedia is shill controlled and monitored so that these pages will present a specific spin on the topic at hand.

Personally, I don't have time for these silly games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, it's not a place for promotion of fringe ideas. —PaleoNeonate – 02:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying we are controlled by reptilians??! WE ARE NOT. Those do not exist, it's just a conspiracy theory, and I am not a close associate of any of them. They are not directly paying us. byteflush _Talk 04:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC) (sorry, couldn't resist)

You don't think so? —PaleoNeonate – 05:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the addition if this material, and given the tone of the above comments by the IP this (as far as I am concerned) is the end of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that you immediately associate my advocacy that historical phenomenon be included with your own distorted conceptions of "fringe" thinkers proves my point, that the conclusions are pre-decided before the discussion is allowed to take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody associated you with fringe until you said It seems rather obvious that this page like almost all of Wikipedia is shill controlled and monitored so that these pages will present a specific spin on the topic at hand. Comments like that would put anyone off. Before the conversation derailed, I believe attempts were being made to explain WP policies to you, and why we need independent sources that connect the topic of UFOs with historical events or ancient classical writings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur. When we see you attack the encyclopedia for what it should be, this raises flags suggesting WP:NOTHERE. That said, you're not blocked or banned and this talk page is the right place if you have reliable sources to suggest. —PaleoNeonate – 02:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

We seem to be including all sorts of ancient legends as UFO sightings now. How about the Star of Bethlehem? It seems to fit the same pattern as many others. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes [3].Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication the Star of Bethlehem was anything other than a stationary temporary star or perhaps a planet in a particular conjunction. I do not wholly object to the idea of it being included, but given that the story of it specifically involves certain people identifying it and knowing what it is and what is signified, it does not seem to qualify as "unidentified." Nor, was it said to be "moving" or "flying".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 14:22, August 17, 2018

Rather than that, there is no indication that is was anything other than a fairy tale invented for the purpose of making Jesus appear special. The description of its position and movement does not fit any fixed star or conjunction. Any speculation on it being reality-based is just wishful thinking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as RS repeat it so can we, and yes the Star is regarded as a UFO.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess you mean RS that say that there are people who regard it as a UFO, not RS who regard it as a UFO. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I say RS, it does not matter if they say they say it or they say someone one does, lets not prejudge sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully we have the omniscient Hob Gadling here to remote view the past and determine once and for all "fact" from "fiction"

Dear Hob, if you think that the Star of Bethlehem is the reason people believe Jesus is "special" then you might want to thoroughly read this page: Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with what you say, starting with my alleged omniscience, continuing with the misrepresentation of what I said ("the reason"), and ending with the wishful assumption that the Jesus article would tell me anything new that would change my mind about his importance. But this is far away from the object of this Talk page, so I will refrain from feeding the troll. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In case you don't read the long list of boxes at the top every time...

There is a new restriction on this article: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. Also see:[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of addition of the "Gimbal" and "Go Fast" event has been restored

User:ජපස You forgot to mention clearly what's wrong with that edit. No worries. Here is your chance.

The entry includes two reputable sources (one is the New York Times which published extensively about this). As you can imagine the sources discussing this event are innumerable and we even have confirmation of date and time and of authenticity of the video by the US Navy (source included). So please tell me what's wrong with that edit. Especially compared to the rest of the entries of this list. Thanks!--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm having problems with the page. Last revert (despite discussion by User:LuckyLouie) introduced a syntax error. See edit summary.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll report here the rationale to introducing the "BlackVault" source. It is mainly to give credit to the original report which has been verified and reported on by several sources (such as history.com which has also been included to clarify that the intent was to just give credit). Maybe a bit too subtle and excessive though. No objections to removing it of course if this thinking is not appropriate (we already have 3 sources which is definitely overkill for such a basic list IMHO): User:LuckyLouie let me know what's your thinking and watch out for that pesky syntax. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The Black Vault [5]? This is a fringe conspiracy website and not appropriate as a source for anything. You really need to review our WP:FRINGE and WP:RS guidelines. - 23:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyLouie (talk • contribs)

I agree. That's why I included 2 other sources. However it IS the outlet the Navy initially made a statement to. So all major sources point to it for breaking the story and give credit to them. It was just to include some context but this is a simple list so absolutely no point in doing that. In an article the context could be explained better. Save it for then maybe. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources that were introduced attempting to claim an incident did not establish this as worthy of inclusion. Mention of released video does not an incident make. Since that is all this is, we don't include it on the list. Eventually, a reliable source might write about this "incident" as separate from the related one already included. But until this time, we have to keep it off our list as we do a number of other poorly sourced "incidents". WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG are the relevant WP:PAGs. jps (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, how are the sightings, reported in the NY Times and History.com, any less appropriate for inclusion than other incidents in the list? What is the "related one already included" that you're referring to? Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, "History.com" is the company that pushes ancient alien pseudoscience, so that's no good. The New York Times cite is used for the Nimitz incident, and they do not clearly distinguish this Gimbal thing as an "incident". There isn't really any narrative, for example. jps (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, thanks, but I'm still confused. The Nimitz incident (which used a different NY Times cite) was 2004-2005. I don't see "Gimbal" in this other NYT article but it is describing sightings in the summer of 2014 to March 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's part of the same string of stories that came out of the To the Stars (company) media campaign last year claiming "disclosure". Unlike the Nimitz incident where the surrounding context was provided, the Gimbal/Go Fast incident does not seem to have yet generated enough independent notice for us to write about as an incident. jps (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re the “vault” website being discussed here. In this edit, a link was added to The Black Vault, a fringe conspiracy website. It's unlikely the Navy would have any official communications with this outfit. Perhaps the OP had it confused with The V.A.U.L.T., which is a section of Tom Delonge’s ‘’To The Stars’’ company website, which I also have doubts the Navy “released” anything to, given that they are an entertainment company openly soliciting investors [6] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a distinct lack of sourcing that these NYTimes covered events were of any interest to the Navy whatsoever. The claims that the Navy is changing their protocol on reporting incidents is a leak to Politico and that's basically it. jps (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"The claims that the Navy is changing their protocol on reporting incidents is a leak to Politico and that's basically it" a very simple google search would have spared you from making such a false/incorrect statement. The policy change is from 5 years ago and well established by multiple WP:RS --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. jps (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Only blue-links?

I disagree with this edit summary. Every item should be reliably sourced, but I don't agree that only sightings that are notable enough for a stand-alone article should be listed. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Check the archives. We've discussed this before. They don't have to be stand-alone articles, but we need to have something to link to for people to read more. If we have deleted mention from Wikipedia due to poor sourcing, it gets removed from this list. If it is merged into a parent article, we still include it (and the link is still blue!). jps (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree. Can the relevant discussion be linked? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_reported_UFO_sightings/Archive_6#page_protection. jps (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't seem to be related to only including articles that have "blue-links". Or am I reading it without needed context? I agree the list should only be about notable events and well sourced. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The argument was over the removal of an incident for which there was no blue link. jps (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems just an incoherent discussion... certainly no consensus to be seen. Maybe you linked the wrong discussion.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that revert.

Our policy WP:LISTN doesn't require every entry in a list to be independently notable, while acknowledging that requiring notability for each entry is a common practice for limiting the size of large list articles.

Policies are our rules, guidelines are our best practices. The first point in our guideline WP:CSC also describes this best practice.

Along the same lines, I've observed the essay WP:WTAF (not an official guideline, but guidance) being cited in edit summaries when removing redlinks from lists. After I saw one such occurrence I started doing this myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, Gtoffoletto actually finally did write the article which justifies an inclusion of the incident on the list. Was it really that hard? jps (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Gtoffoletto. It does take some effort to write a decent start-class article, so I'm pleased to see it's been done. My previous comment about our policies and guidelines still stand, however. I think WP:WTAF is a good practice for this article, to prevent it from growing into an indiscriminate list of sightings found only in unreliable true-believer sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. jps (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:CSC criteria one seems the most reasonable for an article such as this one where the risk of becoming an indiscriminate list is high: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers."

We agree this standard should be applied in the future for this list?

And yes it did take some time to write the page but proud to have done it. Hope to see it bloom from a small stub to a nice complete article. Red links can encourage editors to create missing pages. So if a subject is clearly notable they should be allowed in the list. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

P.s. this criteria should not be applied to the "ancient sightings" sections of the list. Those events probably don't warrant an entire article. However those events are very interesting and the list is short and necessarily limited. So a different standard should be applied. I would use criteria 3 in WP:CSC for those few events: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

including reports of close encounters and abductions.

Why is this not separated into another article, say along with sightings of santa, jesus and other mythical figures? --HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because there is not need?Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

pp

I hae now asked for page protection as this is getting tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

This seems if any history reported before classical antiquity seem irrelevant. I really don't want to bring it up,but it does look racist when it is always the Caucasian Classical Antiquity on most record lists. Continue to argue if you wish, but what happens in the Wikipedia edits stays in the Wikipedia edits archive history whether it it kept or not. 174.253.66.0 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

South Korea UFO incidents

I have reverted a recently-added entry for an alleged 1980 UFO incident in South Korea, a seemingly good-faith contribution from the new editor User:ProfGeorge Campbell. Firstly, because the cited sources are in Korean, it is impossible (at least for me) to determine if they are independent and reliable, per WP:FRIND. Secondly, independent of language one of the sources is a YouTube video which, per WP:RSPS, is not reliable and should not be used. Please restore the content if verifiable, reliable, independent, non-fringe sources can be found. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I summed and Arred about removal, but did not for precisely the same reason. I could not read the sources, so had no idea if they were RS or not. We do not reject ources just because they are not in English.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, I did not remove the content because the supporting sources were not in English, but rather because their reliability (outside the non-RS YouTube) could not be objectively affirmed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Or rejected, so it might have been better to raise the issue as rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation. Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo retelling a story aired on a Korean TV show that claims a UFO was seen in 1980. The last couple paragraphs seem to be trying to tie this stuff in with Roswell (?) and a vague Korean War era UFO story involving soldiers seeing something in the sky and then being sick. Could be a nominally reliable source, but fails WP:EXTRAORDINARY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the leg work. JoongAng Ilbo does seem to be generally reliable. Along with your points, I note that the translated article refers to Roswell as "a known UFO crash" (emphasis mine), so author/editorial credulity seems an issue. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, This is original editor User:ProfGeorge Campbell of new S.K UFO incident. First I'm Sorry for uploading the S.K incident without any explanation of reliable source. Maybe I should explain everything to explain the question, I hope you understand me even if the writing is a little long. I'll try my best to explain.

1. The Original Source The original source is JTBC's Lee Kyu-yeon's Spotlight , It's Investigative journalism shows as 60 Minutes. https://tv.jtbc.joins.com/replay/pr10010365/pm10030344/ep10029666/view

The actual broadcast was broadcast on TV in 2016 and a replay is uploaded on the homepage.

2. Why does the show want to relate the S.Korean UFO sightings to Roswell?

The show call this Korean Sight incidnet as ' the Korean version of Roswell' . but S.K incident, it wasn't even a UFO crash, i think they just name it because the show cover the most famous Rosewell incident at the very first part of the show and then they cover the S.K reported UFO sighting by pilots right after it.

That is why i wrote it down the name as 'the 1980 Korean UFO  incident' .If anyone think there are better name for this incident like 'Team Spirit UFO incident' anything. Please feel free to edit there are no offical name of this incident and the end of the testimony This show also call it as "Team Spirit incident"  .

3.Why did i used the Source as Youtube which is not a proper to the Wikipeida.

There is an original video that lasts about 50 minutes on the broadcasting station's website as i write mentioend and linked. https://tv.jtbc.joins.com/replay/pr10010365/pm10030344/ep10029666/view

However, you have to sign up and pay 1 dollar to watch,  so I just linked the source of JoongAng Ilbo, JTBC YouTube Channel which anyone can read and  watch for free. Technically same source but you can access and watch it for free.

Most of what I wrote in the S.K incident part is specific testimony from Air Force pilots on JTBC broadcast which is 7:30(youtube timestamp) ~ 16:30 from youtube source , so I will write down the translated subtitles with (time) and link below. Please check the source video with my poor eng sub. I hope i can help you to determine whether it is reliable enough to be uploaded in the UFO Insight list based on the pilot's testimony and broadcasting contents.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfuKqGcE_II

Time stamp start at (7:30) Narration(7:30) : From now on, we are tracking the Korean version of Roswell Incident.

[subtitle : Daegu Air Force Base] Narration (7:35) : 11th Combat Squadron in Daegu

Narration(7:40) Two phantom aircraft are flying over the sky.

Narration : a squadron of two pilots and co-pilots.

Narration(7:50) : Four people were flying from Daegu to Gangneung.

They saw a suspicious light at 15,000 feet.

A mysterious aircraft moving between the stars.

Narration(8:00):  we Meet the Air Force pilot who witnessed the mysterious creature at that time in person.

After several persuasion, he accepted the interview.

[Lim Byung-sun, Age 79 (in 2016), Air Force (reserve)Major general]

Lim (8:10): (Interview) I was going to say no. Come to think of it. You know, interviews, in a way, I think it's one of my duties.

Narration (8:20) : He's a reserve officer of airforce, Major Genaral.

General Lim Byung-sun (showing rank Leader and Unit Citation, medal decoration certificate from President Chun Doo-hwan ) Pilots Opening the Phantom Age

Narration (8:30) : This is a living witness of our Air Force who once sank a NK spy ship. Around the time he saw a mysterious object,

Narration (8:40): Not long after the Coup d'état of December Twelfth and Assassination of Park Chung-hee.

A few months before the Gwangju Democratization Movement,

Narration (8:50): it was a truly turbulent time. he witness an unforgettable moment.

Lim Byeong-sun [Major general] (8:56) : At that time, I was on a Team Spirit ( Joint military training exercise of United States Forces Korea and the Military of South Korea)

Lim (9:01) :  An emergency deployment order has been issued for training purposes. (We) took off in 8 min and we were heading towards Gangneung. On a dark night,

Narration (9:10) :  They found a red, blue-colored, mysterious flying object.

Lim (9:18): To the Groung Control "In front of us, an unidentified object keeps moving." "They're coming our way."So I reported it, and he told me to track it down.

Reporter (9:28): Who gave the order to track it down?

Lim (9:30): The operations controller on the ground gave us instructions.

Narration (9:33) :[Showing UFO video captured  in Uijeongbu ]It must have been similar to what Uijeongbu actually captured.

Narration(9:40): General Lim receives an official order from the Operations Controller and tracks the object. As soon as they tries to catch up, the object turns around and move toward Pohang.

Lim(9:50) :  made a turn, 180 degrees back.

Narration: drawing with abnormal trajectories. A typical characteristic of an UFO . When they approach Pohang, it Block their way like a Car pulling out.

Lim(10:06): UFO stood there for a second and went up the vertical. It climbed vertically and went up 33,000 feet.

Reporter(10:15): how much time does it take to went up

Lim(10:16): Time.. It only take a few seconds.

Narration (10:20) : It rose vertically at a high speed like this video. Was it really ufo? (10:28): Two people at 25,000 feet follow the object to the end.

Lim(10:37): when we went up and it stopped at 33,000 feet. Stoped. Reporter(10:38):Again

Lim(10:40): So We watched it closely from there.

reporter: While trunig around Lim: yeah, truning around

Lim(10:45): Yes, and I instructed Colonel Lee Seung-bae to go up and observe the objects.

Reporter(10:54): Is it that far? 200m Lim(10:56): There where the letter "Korea" is written . That's about it. Reporter: The missile projectile model over there. Lim: yes yes Reporter: That's how close you were. Lim: yeah yeah

Narration(11:03): The distance is only 200 meters.  above and next to the UFO and they observes it.

Reporter(11:10): What was the shape and size?

Lim(11:12): It's three times as big as a phantom.

Narration(11:18): About 36 meters is about 10 stories high in the apartment.

Narration(11:23): What was the shape?

Lim(11:25): It's a disk. It's round. And if you look from the side, it looks like this. The unique thing is, you know, the center. Fireworks were blowing very hard up and down.

Narration(11:40): What's surprising is that the fuel injection system spews  from center to top  and bottom. he still vividly remember it.

Lim(11:47): you know the Oxy-fuel welding. Reporter:  (yes yes) Lim: That's exactly the same the color of the oxygen welding.

Narration(11:55): It's stronger and more intense than the color of this video.

Reporter(12:00): What happens next after obesrvation for 10 minutes?

Lim(12:06): It takes a lot of fuel for a fighter to fly at 33,000 feet in a small radius.

Narration(12:16): they've considered a warning Shot, but they had to withdraw because they could run out of fuel. At the same time, he kept an eye on the Flying disc throguh the rear-view mirror. Flying disk go out towards East Sea side. 40 minutes of UFO chase, Now we verify the memory of the day.

Narration(12:38): First, I found Daegu Air Base where General Lim served . Unfortunately, the 151st Battalion is inactivated anymore. We checked the article to see if there was Team Spirit military training excercise at the time of the article. Training name is called Team Spirit 80.

The Korea-U.S. Joint training took place for 51 days.

Narration (13:00) : What surprised him when he tracked it was the unidentified object's performance.

Neither fighter radar nor ground radar could not capture the Flying saucer.

Narration (13:10) : Is it possible? At the time of the sighting, in March 1980, the first combat use of purpose-designed stealth aircraft was in 1989,  Then Was that time technology possible to stop after 10,000 feet of vertical rise?

Jin Won-jin  Professor / Far East University, Aviation Maintenance (13:33) There are still no aircraft with propulsion both up and down , and The time he witness was the 1980.  I don't think there were any aircraft like that in the 1980s .

Narration (13:47) : Colonel Lee Seung-bae, who controlled the Phantom in the same squadron with the General Lim, was able to contact with us.

Lee Seung-bae / KoreanAirforce Reserved Colonel (13:55): Not only shock, but even now, it's unforgettable, but I can proudly say it (UFO story). Frankly

Just keep that in mind. you got to know that there's definitely UFO exist in the world.

(14:06)The Fact that four fighter pilots tracked it down, you personally acknowledge it .

General Lim, who was ordered to launch during the official military operation, naturally he reported the record to the higher unit (Military hierarchy).

Narration (14:25) : Colonel Park Oh-sang, who was in charge of Military intelligence at the time, wrote a report. Does he still remember it?

Park Oh-sang /Air Force Reserve Colonel (14:34) :

ah, yeah, I got the report and it was reported through the Line of Report (chain of command). The content of the report is what I , General Lim, and Colonel Lee Seung-bae said. that is all.

Park Oh-sang (14:48) : I personally trust becasue the active the pilot witnessed it in person. There's a procedure, so it  reported to the higher Unit then to the Intelligence agency then i don't konw show it was handled.

Narration  (15:00) :Afterwards, General Lim heard the Air Force headquarters' opinion on the sighting of the mysterious aircraft.

Lim(15:08): The Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence called me directly from Air Force Headquarters. "I've heard the operations report, but the Air Force is not capable of analyzing it." "So know that, there will be no reply to you. you just know that. "

Narrtaion(15:23) : Afterwards, he writes a report with Lt. Col. Wordsworth of the U.S. Air Force, whom he was acquainted with. And he sending this report to the U.S. Air Force.

After 15 days, he got a Call from U.S Airforce.

Lim(15:35):  "We've got over 500 such reports." And the second time he've said, "Maybe UFO."

Narration (15:43) : "Maybe UFO". it give us goose bumps.

Narration: Does anyone in the Air Force headquarters has any memories of the day?

Air Force Headquarters airman (15:52): Even if one just have joined in 36 years ago, they would be all retired now, so we can't tell you anything.

Narration(16:03):The same goes for the requests for information disclosure. [Written Reply]This is to inform you that the information does not exist.

Narration(16:10) : We have tracked down the Daegu Team Spirit UFO Incident. At least four people witnessed at the same time, tracked down the flying saucer through the operational instructions, confirmed by U.S Airforce. Even the witnesses were all elite military officers.  The 40-minute UFO incident on the night of March 31, 80 was a meaningful event. Usually, the sightings of pilots with expertise and credibility have a special value. we heard another witness from another active pilot. (And another testimoney goes on)

---

That's it.

When it was on the TV (2016) they introduce all the airforce offical on subtitle as "Reserve officers" but it's 2021 now so i assume that they are all (ret.) retired now.

4. The Reason i upload this incident and deserve to be on the UFO list

i think that the reliability of military officers rather than the reliability of the broadcasting station was enough to be on the list. a key part of the UFO broadcast was testimony

I uploaded it because I thought the specific testimony of various military officers who revealed both their faces and identities was reliable.

I don't think General Lim Byung-sun, who sank the spy ship and even received former President Chun Doo-hwan's medal, lies after his discharge as a general.

The same goes for Colonel (ret.) Park O-sang, who was in charge of intelligence, and Colonel (ret.) Lee Seung-bae, who flew on the plane with The General Lim Byung-sun. general and colonel revealed their names and class status and appeared on the broadcast. To me This was impressive.

If anyone here agree to re-upload this incident, you can always modify the name of the case or anything to modify. I'm just a messenger of testimony. thank you for reading all this long. ProfGeorge Campbell (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure this youtube video is an RS, what TV channel broadcast it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The broadcast station called JTBC. The original source is Lee Kyu-yeon's Spotlight show ProfGeorge Campbell (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The JoongAng Ilbo newspaper and the Spotlight TV show/JTBC are both owned by JoongAng Holdings Ltd., so it makes sense that one is publicizing the other. I don't see any WP:INDY coverage of this outside the JoongAng Holdings Ltd. bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I found a different source that cover the Same story of 1980 Team spirit UFO. And this one is even before the previous JTBC Broadcasting. http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?ctcd=&nNewsNumb=201412100040 Source date is December 2014. The source is the monthly Wolgan Chosun which the newspaper company The Chosun Ilbo publish monthly. ProfGeorge Campbell (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Loring AFB Incident

There was an incident (perhaps incidents) at Loring AFB in 1975. There are a couple videos out there on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.218.19 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Any RS report this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There will soon, hopefully be a collection of sightings listed on the sightings in us page. Read the history of said page under an entry signed by me, now being redone. Chantern15 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Overlap with UFO sightings in the United States

Hi, This article is mostly overlap with UFO sightings in the United States. On that basis, it could be merge. However there are most probably more UFOs reports from the US than from anywhere else, so this means a separate article is useful. What to do? Yann (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Is CUFOS a RS?

Hi, Is Center for UFO Studies considered a reliable source? CUFOS is an " international group of scientists, academics, investigators, and volunteers", and has a huge database of UFO cases. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Might be best to ask at wP:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The "anomalous echoes" entry you added does not mention UFOs [7], so I suggest you remove it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, whether it is an object is a matter of debate, but it is certainly an unidentified aerial phenomenon, so it perfectly fits that list. Actually, many reports in that list are not objects. Should we remove hoaxes, misidentified meteorological events and hallucinations? Yann (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No, a ufologist is not a WP:FRIND source for what is ‘anomalous’. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No. As LuckyLouie wrote immediately above, CUFOS fails WP:FRIND. Despite the self-description, it is (was? the website seems only partially functional) an organization started by a ufologist for ufologists to discuss/collect ufology. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine. Yann (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Also...a source by ufologist Jacques Vallée ("Estimates of Optical Power Output in Six Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects") appears to be being used to promote credulous fringe interpretations in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. "Several people witnessed a UAP which trigged off the city lights of Gujan-Mestras". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, Vallée is known as an expert in this field, and is rather critical in many cases. His reports are well documented. And there is no "credulous fringe interpretations" in this report. This is simply false. There may be some other documents with questionable reasonings, but there is actually no interpretations at all in this report. Did you read it? And yes, the city lights were triggered off by some unexplained AP. This is a fact. It may be some natural phenomena (lightning?), but investigations didn't find out. Yann (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

No, fringe science advocates like Vallee are not the expert community Wikipedia considers reliable and independent sources for statements of fact about a fringe topic. Citing his book for nebulous reports such as "Dr. S., a French physicist, saw a luminous disk moving in the sky" is not appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have started to remove some of the Vallee-cited entries, along with others that are non-notable and/or poorly sourced. For example, the pro-woo Ann Druffel should never be used as an authoritative source - if you question that statement, just take a look at her webpage. If anyone thinks this removed material should be reinstated, I suggest that they locate and include sources that satisfy WP:FRIND, and perhaps first consider WP:WTAF before adding the "event" to this list. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. By your reasoning, there is no reliable source on this subject. So according to you, anyone who reports UFOs sightings is not reliable. It doesn't make. I am going to but them back. And these reports are certainly reliable for the facts, even if not for the interpretation. Yann (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

these reports are certainly reliable for the facts No. Ufologists like Vallée and Shough are, as LuckyLouie correctly wrote above, fringe advocates. Their books/articles/organization websites/etc. about fringe topics like UFOs can not be considered reliable. You seem to be adding controversial, non-WP:FRIND material to this and related articles, and I suggest that before you add any more such content that you first discuss each of your desired additions on the appropriate Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

With this argument, you will dismiss Einstein's theory in 1905, as a fringe theory. A complelely new theory by an unknown young guy, not even a university professor. Vallée is recognized as an expert in this field by most people for years. And you confuse 2 things: reporting facts and interpretations. For the facts, we only need a detailed and accurate report. The sources I used are detailed and accurate. You need better arguments. Yann (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Information from the CIA

Hi, In File:The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance, the U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974.pdf (page 72-73), there is interesting information worth including in this article:

High-altitude testing of the U-2 soon led to an unexpected side effect-a tremendous increase in reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). In the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew at altitudes between 10,000 and 20,000 feet and military aircraft like the B-47s and B-57s operated at altitudes below 40,000 feet. Consequently, once U-2s started flying at altitudes above 60,000 feet, air-traffic controllers began receiving increasing numbers of UFO reports.

Such reports were most prevalent in the early evening hours from pilots of airliners flying from east to west. When the sun dropped below the horizon of an airliner flying at 20,000 feet, the plane was in darkness. But, if a U-2 was airborne in the vicinity of the airliner at the same time, its horizon from an altitude of 60,000 feet was considerably more distant, and, being so high in the sky, its silver wings would catch and reflect the rays of the sun and appear to the airliner pilot, 40,000 feet below, to be fiery objects. Even during day-light hours, the silver bodies of the high-flying U-2s could catch the sun and cause reflections or glints that could be seen at lower altitudes and even on the ground. At this time, no one believed manned flight was possible above 60,000 feet, so no one expected to see an object so high in the sky.

Not only did the airline pilots report their sightings to air-traffic controllers, but they and ground-based observers also wrote letters to the Air Force unit at Wright Air Development Command in Dayton charged with investigating such phenomena. This, in tum, led to the Air Force's Operation BLUE BOOK. Based at Wright-Patterson, the operation collected all reports of UFO sightings. Air Force investigators then attempted to explain such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena. BLUE BOOK investigators regularly called on the Agency's Project Staff in Washington to check reported UFO sightings against U-2 flight logs. This enabled the investigators to eliminate the majority of the UFO reports, although they could not reveal to the letter writers the true cause of the UFO sightings. U-2 and later OXCART flights accounted for more than one-half of all UFO reports during the late 1950s and most of the 1960s.

Yann (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What makes this notable? Are there third-party WP:FRIND sources that comment on the specific information contained in this document? Wikipedia prefers to base article text on secondary sourcing, since an editor poring over WP:PRIMARY sources looking for interesting details not covered by third-party sources is the very definition of WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: So you would accept some reports from a local newspaper because it is a secondary source, although probably not reliable, but you don't accept CIA reports? And using a CIA report as a source is not OR. You need better arguments than that. Actually the interesting fact in this report (that U-2s were sometimes taken for UFOs) is not controversial, so I don't see the issue. Yann (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:CONSENSUS applies here, and as a new user it would benefit you to familiarize yourself with these policies. In this case, an acceptable secondary source for a brief mention of the U2 triggering UFO reports is available here in the form of a BBC article. There's no need to reproduce lengthy quotes from CIA documents you found on the Black Vault. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I have been here longer than you, and I know pretty well these policies. But your interpretation of them is quite nonsense IMHO. And is it because this CIA file is available on the Black Vault that it is not a reliable source? You are shooting yourself in the foot here. Yann (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, your unfamiliarity with editorial policies gave me the wrong impression. I suppose If you're certain that aliens walk among us and the government just isn't saying anything about it, then the Black Vault is the website for you...but I don't agree that Wikipedia should be looking to it for factual content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There you show your true face. I don't think UFOs are extraterrestrial. I have never said that, and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Most of UFO reports are not even about real objects. Yet they are interesting phenomena. Among thousands of reports, about several hundreds are yet unexplained.

I don't think any government hides anything about UFOs. But Ruppelt's book shows very well how the US government (and may be several others), through mismanagement and lack of coordination, could give the impression of hiding something. This is more a lesson on communication and governance than anything else.

Then what the problem with the fact that a CIA report has been made public by the Black Vault? Or do you deny that it is a real CIA report? I don't agree with any conspiracy theories, but I find useful when someone release a document not otherwise accessible to the public. Isn't exactly what Wikipedia does, making knowledge accessible to anyone? Yann (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Black Vault has never really been considered a reliable repository for anything. I cannot verify the provenance of that "CIA report" except on the say-so of that website. If you cannot figure out why that's a problem, I suggest you probably have issues with being competent enough to edit this page. jps (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: Do not insult me. Your attitude is very arrogant. I know this subject quite well. So you deny that this is not a real CIA report? Wow! That's a conspiracy theory! Yann (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia contributors job to decide whether specific material hosted on fringe websites is 'real' or not. We don't cite such websites at all, because they don't meet WP:RS policy. And anyway, we've got the BBC summarising the U2 claim, which is quite sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(ce) Your attitude is very arrogant This from the editor who responded above to LuckyLouie with I have been here longer than you. Before things get out of hand, and because you have failed to gain consensus for your desired edits, perhaps now is a good time to drop the stick. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not sufficient. I am not accepting blank rebuttal without any substance. Why are my sources bad, or worse than the ones already in the article? You need to answer this. Yann (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a great many crap sources cited in this article. Adding to them won't improve matters. Removing them will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

^This. Thanks to all who are actively removing the crap. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

UFO's, A Scientific Debate

Hi, Here are some UFO sightings from the book UFO's, A Scientific Debate by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, and not mentioned in this article. Is this a reliable source according to you? Or may be you haven't even heard of Carl Sagan...

• 1952-01-16, Artesia, New Mexico, Daylight Disk
• 1952-01-22, Alaska, A.M. Radar
• 1956-08-13, Lakenheath, UK, Radar and nocturnal light
• 1957-07-17, South-central US, Radar
• 1957-11-04, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico
• 1961-10-02, Salt Lake City, Utah, Daylight disk
• 1958-06, Minnesota, Daylight disk
• 1966-03-06, Missouri, Close encounter
• 1966-09-22, Deadwood, South Dakota, Nocturnal light
• 1966-10-10, Newton, Illinois, Daylight disk
• 1967-01-20, Methuen, Massachusetts, Close encounter
• 1967-03-02, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, P.M. Radar
• 1967-05-13, Colorado Springs, Colorado, P.M. Radar
• 1967-09-22, Gravois, France, Nocturnal light

There are probably more, that's just the introduction. Yann (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The book concerns material submitted to a symposium in 1969. Sagan and Page were the editors. The book is presumably reliable for such content being submitted. Sagan certainly can't be cited for such sightings having taken place, or for any claims made by the authors of the individual sections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

These come from the first chapter after the introduction, called Selected UFO Cases. The list was prepared by Thornton Page. Yann (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What specific content are you proposing to cite the book for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

For the cases I have mentioned above. Yann (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see what we would be saying about these cases. Other than being mentioned, is there anything that makes them worthy of inclusion? "Mere mention" is not usually an inclusion criteria that is fruitful. jps (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Haneda Air Force Base incident is also mentioned. This case was removed after I wrote this list. Yann (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that the entry in question was copy-pasted directly from the source (a paper submitted to the symposium by an ufologist), and may very well be linking a copyright-violating download, removal of the content concerned would seem entirely appropriate, per Wikipedia copyright policy. As to whether the incident merits inclusion in the article, possibly. But only if it can be shown that this isn't just another example of something only the ufologists consider significant. Where else has the incident been discussed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The cited paper contains UFO proponent James E. McDonald's rejection of the Condon Committee's conclusion that a 1952 unidentified bogie over the USAF base at Haneda Japan was probably a radar/visual reflection. McDonald argues that it is not explainable and hints that the most plausible explanation is ET. This is a WP:FRINGE view that has gotten zero attention outside of a few dedicated UFOlogists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And the citation by Thornton Leigh Page in a scientific symposium is also FRINGE? Yann (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's obscure, that's for sure. What do you think Page's discussion of the incident does for the WP:PROMINENCE of the sighting? When you have a subject with thousands of possible entries, simply having a person mention a sighting does not, to me, indicate that we have enough reliable sources for a consistent WP:LISTCRIT. But I'm open to your argument if you would like to make it. jps (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This book is about the only scientific symposium studying UFOs, and only lists a few cases, not thousands. So the selected cases are certainly sufficiently notable to be included here. Yann (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If all we have is a single source from 50+ years ago, that indicates to me obscurity, not notability. If these cases were truly notable they would/should have received far more attention in FRIND sources, but they apparently didn't. Would any of them merit a stand-alone article here? We should also be extremely cautious when considering James E. McDonald (a page that requires substantial editing, btw) as a source for anything concerning UFOs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So, according to you, only cases which have their own article can be included in this list? You should be clear from the start, instead of trying different refutation pretexts. Yann (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am somewhat late to this conversation. I don't think it's feasible to include every UFO report with one reliable source like this. A problem that has not come up is quantity. There are a massive number of reported sightings. I see Jacques Vallee getting some criticism on the talk page and that must have my spreading activation going because I'm reminded of something he said about rejecting the extraterrestrial hypothesis: It is inconceivable that UFOs are extraterrestrials probing Earth, due to the sheer quantity of reports. Vallee contrasted the waves of UFO reports with the handful of probes we sent to other planets. Attempting to catalog all UFO reports would be like making a list of extramarital affairs or list of writers. It would be too massive to be useful. Rjjiii (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)